Rural Broadband Service Subsidy Approved by Court

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Originally approved in 2011 by the FCC, the Connect America program was challenged in court by phone companies fearful of losing subsidies. A Federal Appeals Court has ruled in favor of the FCC. The program will bring now high speed broadband Internet connection to low density rural areas in the US.

F.C.C. officials expressed satisfaction at the decision. “Congress has directed the commission to ensure that all Americans receive the benefit of 21st-century communications.”
Click to expand...
 
Great. A continuation of a tax. An unconstitutional one at that (for those who think the constitution has any authority).
 
Wait, we're subsidizing broadband internet roll outs yet it still doesn't qualify as a common carrier service? Got it.
 
adrift02 said:
Wait, we're subsidizing broadband internet roll outs yet it still doesn't qualify as a common carrier service? Got it.
Click to expand...

AND they want the subsidies without doing the work. I wish I could do that, but just my luck I wasn't born a corporation.
 
didn't this happen before a few years back? all these companies got money to build out rural broadband.. and just took the money and did absolutely nothing?
 
illli said:
didn't this happen before a few years back? all these companies got money to build out rural broadband.. and just took the money and did absolutely nothing?
Click to expand...

They did something. Those vacations to Maui were pretty nice.

Accountability means nothing to these people.

Broadband, last time they were trying to push this, meant 256Kbps or greater download. That really isn't shit, unless you compare it to dialup. If 256K is the fastest they will push out, it's not worth the effort. At the minimum, it should be 3Mbps (I'd say 1.5, T1 speed, but that's slow by todays standards).
 
sfsuphysics said:
Wait why are phone company (I know of exactly one) subsidized?
Click to expand...

Because left to their own devices, there would be large swaths of the country without any communications services because the population densities don't warrant investment in infrastructure.

Subsidies and deals (tax, access, hookers & blow, etc.) correct for these market inadequacies because we collectively decided -- correctly, I might add -- that some services are important enough that their existence shouldn't be based on the minutiae of quarterly P&L statements.

Rural broadband can help stop brain drain, improve quality of life and even make the best use of limited and expensive resources through the use of services like telemedicine and telecommuting.
 
illli said:
didn't this happen before a few years back? all these companies got money to build out rural broadband.. and just took the money and did absolutely nothing?
Click to expand...

Technically yes they did do something with it

But their definition of putting it out into rural area's was "Build out into area's that have 50% less population density than new york"

This is basically money so broadband will be put out into area's that have basic 3G cell phone coverage yet phone internet
 
I am too far for DSL and their is no cable internet for 20 miles. What type of broadband are they going to build?
 
PunditGuy said:
Because left to their own devices, there would be large swaths of the country without any communications services because the population densities don't warrant investment in infrastructure.

Subsidies and deals (tax, access, hookers & blow, etc.) correct for these market inadequacies because we collectively decided -- correctly, I might add -- that some services are important enough that their existence shouldn't be based on the minutiae of quarterly P&L statements.

Rural broadband can help stop brain drain, improve quality of life and even make the best use of limited and expensive resources through the use of services like telemedicine and telecommuting.
Click to expand...

It also relieves overcrowding in cities by allowing the work-from-home crowd to leave the city, and save the city apartments for people who actually need them.
 
Telecommuting is a good point, but those people are already in the suburbs, which shouldn't be hurting in the broadband department. I live 5 miles from endless cornfields and I could get 500mb cable here.
 
PunditGuy said:
Because left to their own devices, there would be large swaths of the country without any communications services because the population densities don't warrant investment in infrastructure.

Subsidies and deals (tax, access, hookers & blow, etc.) correct for these market inadequacies because we collectively decided -- correctly, I might add -- that some services are important enough that their existence shouldn't be based on the minutiae of quarterly P&L statements.
Click to expand...
1. There's no such thing as a market inadequacy.
2. We didn't collectively decide any such thing.

PunditGuy said:
Rural broadband can help stop brain drain, improve quality of life and even make the best use of limited and expensive resources through the use of services like telemedicine and telecommuting.
Click to expand...
Ah yes: exitus acta probat. But no: the ends do not ever justify the means.
 
MisterHipster said:
Yes! I love this! I live in a rural area.... So.... :)
Click to expand...

i am rural also and I do not have any hopes that it will actually happen or come to my area.

we'll be stuck with 1mb/128k DSL until frontier decides to drop land lines because the infrastructure is so bad
 
AND

WV got a huge sum of money from the government a few years ago to do this exact thing and they squandered so badly that nothing got done and some verizon employees/contractors got paid HUGE money to do absolutely nothing.
 
They have been promising fiber to my parents (rural VT) for years now. They have been advertising it for years now and we have been on the build out list since at least 3 years now. Nothing has changed and I highly doubt it will change even with more free money given to them.
 
Bigbacon said:
AND

WV got a huge sum of money from the government a few years ago to do this exact thing and they squandered so badly that nothing got done and some verizon employees/contractors got paid HUGE money to do absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's why you have to have goals, milestones, and project expectations clearly attached to any money. Oh and they should be defined by an independent board, not legislators or telecom companies. That's the problem, lobbyists and politicians make sure the money has no teeth.
 
Don't forget that wireless counts as broadband nowdays, so if you were hoping to get cable or DSL, your probably out of luck.
 
So long as there isn't some clause allowing regional monopolies, as well as a thorough discussion of expectations (lol, government, yeah right), I don't have a problem with this. But if all it does is perpetuate the natural monopoly of data infrastructures, I would sooner have the rural areas be internet-deficient before using government subsidy to allow yet another area that can only get Comcast cable internet...
 
teh_chem said:
So long as there isn't some clause allowing regional monopolies, as well as a thorough discussion of expectations (lol, government, yeah right), I don't have a problem with this. But if all it does is perpetuate the natural monopoly of data infrastructures, I would sooner have the rural areas be internet-deficient before using government subsidy to allow yet another area that can only get Comcast cable internet...
Click to expand...

as a rural person, I'd be fine with this. I take comcast with open arms.
 
Knight_of_BAAWA said:
1. There's no such thing as a market inadequacy.
2. We didn't collectively decide any such thing.

Ah yes: exitus acta probat. But no: the ends do not ever justify the means.
Click to expand...

If there's no such thing as a market inadequacy, then you believe the free market is always adequate. Are you really going to try to defend that position? I'll get some popcorn.

We did actually collectively decide such a thing. It's called representative democracy. You may not like it, but them's the rules where you live, assuming you live in the U.S. Don't like it? Advocate for your position and change it or go find (or found) your libertarian utopia elsewhere.

This is certainly not a matter of Machiavellian fiat. It's a CBA done by the collective. Again, you don't have to like it.
 
Chaos Machine said:
Telecommuting is a good point, but those people are already in the suburbs, which shouldn't be hurting in the broadband department. I live 5 miles from endless cornfields and I could get 500mb cable here.
Click to expand...

I am in the suburbs of Chicago and I have a choice of ~ 3 providers:

1) Jimmy Wireless (who? Really?) (4/0.768) for ~ $60/mo
2) Comcrap (which I have) in which I pay $140/month for 10/50 service.
3) Uverse (dsl) (21Mbit/s max). I asked questions about business service & it took WEEKS to get a response.

Some choice.
 
PunditGuy said:
If there's no such thing as a market inadequacy, then you believe the free market is always adequate.
Click to expand...
Non sequitur.


PunditGuy said:
We did actually collectively decide such a thing.
Click to expand...
No, we didn't. Some people might have, but we (all) certainly didn't.


PunditGuy said:
It's called representative democracy.
Click to expand...
"We took a vote" doesn't make things ok.


PunditGuy said:
You may not like it, but them's the rules where you live, assuming you live in the U.S. Don't like it? Advocate for your position and change it or go find (or found) your libertarian utopia elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, argument from GTFO. I love that one.
 
Oh goodie, let's waste more money on the shitty telco's. Last time this happened their customers got a laughable upgrade while the telco's pocketed the rest of the cash. Let's all hold our breath for this time to be different! :rolleyes:

We don't need subsidies to get broadband to rural area's. We need the illegal monopoly contracts they have to be revoked and competition allowed. Speeds will go up almost overnight the second a competitor moves in.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Oh goodie, let's waste more money on the shitty telco's. Last time this happened their customers got a laughable upgrade while the telco's pocketed the rest of the cash. Let's all hold our breath for this time to be different! :rolleyes:

We don't need subsidies to get broadband to rural area's. We need the illegal monopoly contracts they have to be revoked and competition allowed. Speeds will go up almost overnight the second a competitor moves in.
Click to expand...

Competitors in telecommunications are like unicorns. Much dreamed about, but ehy never exist. And hust when you think they do it is some jackass in a costume.

We need a redo of the Rural Electricrification act to get the rural areas service. Breaking up monopolies is a pipe dream that will never happen due to lobbying.
 
Knight_of_BAAWA said:
1. There's no such thing as a market inadequacy..
Click to expand...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

AHAHA...sorry.

I just laugh when I see arguments like this, because outside of heterodox, let's-not-use-empirical-evidence-because-logic-alone-is-enough "schools" of economic thought, this holds absolutely no water.

Nice try.

Maybe you should take Econ 101.
 
Robstar said:
I am in the suburbs of Chicago and I have a choice of ~ 3 providers:

1) Jimmy Wireless (who? Really?) (4/0.768) for ~ $60/mo
2) Comcrap (which I have) in which I pay $140/month for 10/50 service.
3) Uverse (dsl) (21Mbit/s max). I asked questions about business service & it took WEEKS to get a response.

Some choice.
Click to expand...

least you have choice...

I have:
Frontier DSL 1mb down 118k up
or
Hughes net/dish net....

and the satellite doesn't even count, would rather use dial up
 
illli said:
didn't this happen before a few years back? all these companies got money to build out rural broadband.. and just took the money and did absolutely nothing?
Click to expand...

Slick willie's administration gave the telcos billions so that every home in America would have fiber internet by 2000. The telcos laughed all the way to the bank.
 
damicatz said:
Slick willie's administration gave the telcos billions so that every home in America would have fiber internet by 2000. The telcos laughed all the way to the bank.
Click to expand...

Yep, yachts, and private jets for the rich guys running the telcos, and here we are again talking about another subsidy. Instead we should just be forcing them to live up to their end of the original bargain for the money they already took. Oh, I forgot, the politicians changed the bargain to fit the wants of the telco's lobby. :(
 
Oh and it was a very bi partisan decision. Money talks, morals walk..... well who needs morals anyway. They just get in the way of the career politician.:eek:
 
Sovereign said:
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

AHAHA...sorry.

I just laugh when I see arguments like this, because outside of heterodox, let's-not-use-empirical-evidence-because-logic-alone-is-enough "schools" of economic thought, this holds absolutely no water.
Click to expand...
Well that's nice. When you have a real argument (rather than a poor attempt at insults), do be sure to let me know, k.

Until then, perhaps you should take Econ 101.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top